Jump to content

leicsmac

Member
  • Post count

    15,039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

leicsmac last won the day on 25 March 2017

leicsmac had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,928 Excellent

About leicsmac

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,867 profile views
  1. Unfortunately that's a question on which there is little consensus and a hundred different answers: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support There's loads of different scientific papers around quoting different figures and precious little agreement. In fact, I honestly thought there was more consensus than there is, and so I should qualify my above remarks by saying that I believe the Earth can sustain 9-11 billion people (which is what some projections have it topping out at given current rate of growth) if currently existin
  2. On the topic above and in keeping with what the thread is meant for: How idiot neo-Malthusianism seems to stretch across the entire political compass. Far too many folks who should know better spouting "too many people" while being utter hypocrites by not doing what they could do to help the problem if they really felt that strongly about it. We don't have a human population problem. We have a logistics problem, which in itself has several different causes of varying complexity. Yes, there is a climate crisis that is already happening and is only going to ge
  3. I came up with about seven or eight different ways to make 2 from the five small numbers. The real challenge is solving it while changing the 100 to something else...or not using the 100 at all.
  4. Yep - even the very best, the most reputable, can sometimes chase theories that turn out to be bunk. That's why the peer review process is so important.
  5. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56723560 Hmm. Not saying anything that isn't reasonably obvious, but yeah.
  6. Quite right. Of course there are conspiracies, the Tuskegee experiments, among others, are an example of science being used unethically. But that is a failure of groups of people, not the scientific method of empiricism and peer review itself, which has proven itself time and time again in seeing off both "bad" and unethical science. The problem now is that far too many conspiracy theories (and theorists) fail to differentiate between the scientific method itself and *some* of those who practise it, who do get found out in the end...by the scientific method. And they al
  7. Yep. As an addendum, it isn't conspiracy theory, YouTube videos or single mavericks working alone "against the system" that changes science. What does? Better science (sometimes from those mavericks) that has been *reviewed and accepted by peers* based on the results from it. That last part, consensus, is really important.
  8. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56739896 "The US wants China to cease building coal-fired power stations and to stop financing coal ventures abroad. China wants the US to give more cash to developing countries to obtain clean technology and adapt to climate change. It also wants Washington to announce deep cuts in emissions." I don't see what is controversial about any of that and why it can't be agreed upon by both parties.
  9. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56729673 What a tragic mess. At least the police involved actually sound contrite about this one, rather than the belligerent denial that sometimes accompanies such terrible events.
  10. Yep, I can see why that is frustrating. However, I'd suggest there is a place for such language in matters that are a matter of fact or record, like the vast majority of scientific discoveries, for instance. To be quite brutally honest, coercive grammar like that can sometimes be used to help stop highly damaging misinformation about that particular topic from spreading.
  11. Yep, and that was probably why this worked
  12. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-failed A long read, but a very interesting one. @Kopfkino as you are more well versed than anyone else here on economics, what would you make of this take?
  13. When everything is automated, including the release of various volatile chemicals, I don't suppose that is particularly difficult.
  14. And we should have gone so much further by now. Well, perhaps in the next couple of decades we'll make up for lost time. I hope so.
  15. There needs to be enough awareness, and enough successful civil lawsuits, that change is forced. It's clearly not going to happen willingly.
×
×
  • Create New...